So, What Do We Do About AI?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 12. 2023
- The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month FREE trial of Skillshare!
skl.sh/nationsquid12231
SUPPORT ME on Patreon!
/ nationsquid
OR Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @nationsquid
We’ve experienced incredible breakthroughs in our capabilities, and of course it’s largely because of “Artificial Intelligence.” We can now restore old footage, isolate tracks, or even create new songs entirely, with just the click of a button. The impossible has just become possible.
AI is appearing throughout all sectors of our society: writing, problem solving, remastering, assistant technology, job hiring, just about anything you could think of is now incorporating some kind of AI into it.
What was once a primitive concept made up of beta testing and wishful thinking has now become a commodity to be bought and sold. It is something so eerily advanced in its capabilities, it may just very well be fungible with human labor. Because you don’t have to pay AI, you don’t have to feed it. You just…let it work, forever. And of course, our worst nightmares are now coming to fruition, the corporations are getting involved. People are now reportedly losing their jobs due to its massive growth. These sudden events have posed what will likely be one of the most controversial questions of the 21st Century: Is AI going to replace what we do? Particularly art?
Twitter: / nationsquidyt
Website: www.nationsquid.com/
Merchandise: teespring.com/stores/squids-s...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/nationsquid
Google +: just kidding.
Wholesome by Kevin MacLeod
Link: filmmusic.io/song/5050-wholesome
License: filmmusic.io/standard-license
Link for images licensed under Creative Commons (CC):
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Stock Media provided by TheArchivalCollection / Pond5
Stock Media provided by avgeeks / Pond5
All other images, sounds, and clips are either created by me, properly licensed, in the public domain, under a Creative Commons license with attribution provided, or protected under Fair Use.
ENJOY THE PROGRAM.
The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month FREE trial of Skillshare!
skl.sh/nationsquid12231
nice job for begin here before me
second
I think there's a difference between telegraph operators switching jobs and artists switching jobs. Most people don't go into art just to make money - they develop a passion and pursue it their whole life. That's why having it taken away hurts, especially when it's the most human, most creative parts that are being replaced instead of the more laborious parts of the process. It just feels a little demeaning having to fix up AI art where it kinda did the ""fun" parts for you.
Well in that case I think the thing is its not being taken away.
Like, nobody is stopping you from making art on your own.
Its interesting though, because when it comes to AI in general, basically AI is only capable of doing part of it currently, *the part it has to do is sill up to whoever uses the tool*
It may seem like cleanup is the only part you can do, but AI can do cleanup as well, its just better when a human does it.
But if you start with human made art, and use the AI to clean it up, same quality.
Corporations hate having to answer to people so if you are working in a helpline, start looking for work. CGP will be the interface that insulates the corporation from the public.
As for art, Art is a reflection of human culture. Warhol saw crass commercialism.
Picasso broke all the rules of the 19th century and Basquiat painted improvisational jazz
In Spain they had an issue at a high school class where someone had created nude AI pictures of the 12 year old girls and they were being shared around as if they were real. AI can and will be used for so many cruel things, and it will only get worse as the AI evolves and gets better looking.
God, yeah, I wrote a comment about my issues with machine generation and didn't even _think_ about these disgusting "nudify" programs. That's _way_ worse than my and other artists' work being tossed in the content blender and churning out a bland content sausage, those poor kids...
oh right, let's get rid of photoshop as well now we're at it 🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@DanskeCrimeRiderTV That is not at all what anyone here is talking about and you know it. 🖕
@@DanskeCrimeRiderTV dumbass
@PuppyLuver256 it is related to this topic. it is exactly like saying “let’s get rid of photoshop because it is being used for bad things” or “let’s get rid of cars because it’s causing too much harm”
this comment overall is just ridiculous. it’s to be expected that AI will be used for very bad things and be used for very good things. every tool in the world is used for good and bad.
AI is no true competitor or replacement of the human mind. The problem is that it will be positioned as such.
Just remember: you can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time (with the same tricks).
So it's our responsibility not to get fooled. Again.
(YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!)
My worry is that companies will try to use it to replace workers regardless of its effectiveness. We have to fight for our place, for regulations and fines for AI that make it impractical to use in place of workers.
One thing that has been suggested re automation in general, is tax the usage of the machine based on the number of employees it replaces.
missed the point of the entire video
If they can't legally copyright AI art or music or film or writing, they have no IP to defend & no legal standing for DMCA takedowns. I believe that this wilk be a huge thorn in the side of corporations looking to save money by relying on AI labor. We just have to fight to keep AI noncopyrightable forever.
Gaming companies in China have started to lay off artists in favor of AI.
china could actually care less for their people if it meant that more money get printed out. They were always trying to be more and more productive.@@HomuraAkemiHQ
The issue is that businesses are stupid, and chase short term profit to the detriment of all. Hasbro recently fired 1200 people and have supposedly put up jobs for people who are skilled in "touching up images" and basically generating images with AI tools. So I will worry, because realistically there is cause to.
just blame capitalism already
@@sournois90 And yet the most acclaimed decade on the internet, the 1990's, ran on capitalism.
But that's not AI.
That's capitalism.
@@sournois90 *To the tune of "Blame Canada"*
Blame capitalists!
Blame capitalists!
@@mrmen9874 “We should improve society somewhat.”
“And yet you live in a society! Curious. I am very intelligent.”
Sorry squid but I feel like you've completely glossed over peoples real concerns, the examples you gave where industrial advancements, advancements that bred their own jobs in their own respective area, AI does not need any real human intervention, that is why people are scared.
This video only works for being "optimistic" because you scanned straight over "yeah, new technology means mass layoffs". When vast numbers of people are replaced by AI, they're not going to just decide "Well, I don't need a job anymore, so I'll make art". They'll decide "man, it really sucks sleeping on the street because I can't pay rent because my bosses decided to replace me with a computer that does the job worse than me because you don't have to pay a computer".
Yah there's a huge flaw in this argument. There's this idea that there will always be enough well-paying replacement jobs to fill in for any lost to automation. This isn;t even true of past waves of automation.
The previous wave of manufactoring automation forced a good segment of the population to take on service industry jobs. The reality is that most of these jobs simplt don't support a Middle-Class income.
I wouldn't if it weren't for the fact I've already lost jobs thanks to AI, as an art director. I agree, AI is an overblown, monster in the closet, but I can't say it hasn't affected my potential income...
let's just hope that the "dipping period" is gonna end fast.
@@SpineblorgI sure hope so
Wait, what? How could ai take your work?! Is it really that advanced already?!
@@REDKAZOO Because first time filmmakers Don't understand my job and opted to just let MidJourney design their sets instead of me.
Same, I had some regular contracts illustrating research papers, blog posts, etc.
A quite important number of these now use AI generated visual soup instead.
This and the massive downfall of twitter took a toll on both my mental health and my income.
Sure, AI can't replace art, but since it's faster, easier and cheaper, it sure do replace artists and other workers.
Mmm heyyy Nationsquid, artist to artist, I don't think you understood the point.
There are a few main things about AI that I have noticed most artists hate. 1) It's plagiarism. Someone is taking my work and feeding it into a thoughtless algorithm without my consent. Maybe I would be ok with someone using my art as a reference, but AI is just taking my stuff! 2) we still need our jobs. Maybe in time we'll move on to other jobs and learn to coexist, but we don't live in a world where we have the luxury to be without a job for an extended period of time. And 3) it's lifeless, an insult. People deciding hours, days, weeks of effort are worth so little that we can have that effort be fed through a shredder and pieces back together by something that has no concept of tone, mood, composition, no feeling behind anything it does. Imagine being told your work was that worthless?
There are other problems with AI, but this is purely from my perspective as an artist. So yeah, I think this video was a bit of a miss, sorry Nationsquid.
I disagree with the plagiarism aspect because the AI is NOT copying what is fed into it. It is creating something new completely which is only created using the training data but it is impossible to work out what the training data is by the resulting material. If it isn't being copied, it's not plagiarism.
I looked at your channel bro nobody AI is stealing your art your art sucks and is too flat for a service such as NovelAI to take from.
@@PiotrBarczIt only can create because it has been training other artist's work. No compensation or consent yes it is plagiarism.
@@sadyoshhours2769 it's not spitting out that same work though
@@PiotrBarcz I can't find it but there is a video definitively proving ai generated images are plagiarism
The problem is that automation took tedius jobs. AI is taking expressive jobs. Machines (computer chips) are finally starting to, in a limited way for now, understand the task being given to them.
@@user-qd4xs8zb8s We aren't superior in processing. Humans make way more mistakes, especially at speed/scale.
And no, they don't "fully understand." I've seen chat gpt make obvious math mistakes. If it understood, it would apply the rules of math
The easy solution is to tell that when it recognizes a math problem in a prompt, hand it off to a calculator-program, but that isn't a priority for AI companies.
@@user-zs6df9sb4i You say this as if most humans also fail to "apply the rules of math" because the rules are convoluted and unintuitive and filled with weird ass exceptions.
@@Cr3zant I won't deny that they were sort of arbitrarily decided and that humans make mistakes with PEMDAS all the time. They can feel pretty unintuitive.
But they are strict. A properly programmed calculator will never make a mistake with them. Chat GPT isn't programmed to handle math. If it was, it would never get a clear simple problem wrong
@@joelaut2605 humans are superior at adaptability. But processing? 30 years ago, computers could do in a matter of moments, error-free, what a human couldn't do in their lifetime.
The trick is, until AI, computers needed to be taught how to process each thing. AI is starting to make them adaptable, but it's got a long way to go.
@@user-zs6df9sb4i AI has to be taught, which is why humans will always have an edge, a human doesn't need to train it's brain to create.
Welp. Sadly, 32 minutes and 34 seconds later, I'm STILL worried about AI. Not so much the software, but the mentality propelling it.
Make no mistake, if artists are still making a living in 10 years (don't forget, ALL humans need to eat), it won't be the work of (apologies...) logically convoluted video essays, but the tireless efforts of the art community pressuring their govornments for regulation. It'll be labor strikes and protests. It'll be the general public becoming more culturally literate. Above all, it'll be a repudiation of Silicon Valley's imfamous "Move fast, break things" philosophy. *This* is what a "proactive" co-existience with AI technology means.
The future is not a spectator sport. The most dangerous thing we can do right now is confuse "very limited power" with "no power".
I'll add, the next time you'd like to make art from the great outdoors, try leaving the camera, bringing your pad/ tools, and drawing what you see, on the spot. James Gurney and Stephen Travers can be found on this same platform with tips for this sort of thing. There's a big difference in the experience, and I'm fairly sure it's closer to what your teacher intended.
I’m just worried that it will make people forget how mistakes are okay and we have to work for things in life.
Amen
Bro's commenting before watching 💀
@@Giniek it doesn't really matter what a random youtuber thinks on the subject. AI is leaps beyond what he's giving it credit for and it is legitimately replacing job fields.
@@Slay_No_MoreBro's commenting before watching 💀
@@a.redwood the video was moot and pointless. He's wrong, jobs are actively being replaced by AI as we type. If you weren't 12 you'd be capable of reading the comments seeing people talk of how they've been replaced by AI.
You, my friend, are optimistic about the future potential of A.I
I'm deeply concerned about the motives of the people pushing and influencing A.I.
We are not the same.
you shouldnt be scared of AI. You should be scared of what people decide to do with it.
woah ur smart dood
Hmmm... This all sounds suspiciously like what AI would say...
Before the video is up. Here is my thought on the current AI situation as someone who is involved in the animation industry.
For animation studios and the industry, yes, we need to worry.
Illustrators and concept artists in my professional circle are already losing their jobs and projects for 2D illustrations such as logo or design are in critical situation right now because clients are like, "We just need to use AI why pay for these artists?"
Yes, we can't replace 2D artists completely... yet. But right now, it is a real fact that it is impacting their livelihoods.
And in the future? Will 3D modelers, riggers, animators - get replaced too? 2D animators? Editors?
@@NathanielKrefmanYou're saying that as if most profitable art isn't mostly derivative.
But that's not AI. That's capitalism.
AI is a machine. It only does what it's told.
I’m in the same situation with concept dev work, good luck to us man we’re in this together:”)
A friend is a voice-over artist who does narration on film. $100 text to speech programs are replacing everyone.
On the positive side, the camera was invented in the 1850's and all the artists were in a panic. but soon after came the rise to of the impressionists and a new purpose for art.
What worries me today is that the computer may trivialize the visual image
You won't be replaced with AI you will likely be replaced by someone using AI
Hard not to worry about A.I. when artists are losing their jobs en masse :/
Have you seen it yourself or are you just reading articles about it?
Even if it is true, it's not AI's fault.
It's capitalists' fault.
That would be the case in the near future for a lot of other fields too, not just art. Once self driving vehicles really take off it will displace millions of people who are in the transportation business. There are about 3.5 million truck drivers currently in the US, if you add other driving jobs like local or food delivery services, taxi, Uber drivers etc. that number will be probably close to 10 million and they will be displaced as well, but people don't pay attention to that. If anything most people think the self driving cars and vehicles are cool. As long as someone's order is delivered to their home or is transported from place A to B, people don't care who or how is going to do it.
@@toreadoress absolutely. It's going to cause a huge shakeup across the board. In some cases it already has.
As someone who's subscribed/supported you for years, and even though I respect your opinion, I'm still honestly a bit disappointed in you, Kyle
After watching this whole thing, I HARD cannot support this. Your discussion points were clearly you trying to brush off any of the main concerns we artists have for this. It's not a matter of "using this program as a tool", it's a matter of HOW this tech is being used. Your arguments are based around the 'Honor System' which, I'm sure we ALLLLLL know that everyone will absolutely TOTALLY 100% COMPLETELY FOLLOW 👌
It's not a manner of 'comparing a hunter to planting a seed'. Given how AI work, it's more like 'an art thief who broke into a museum, snapped photos of all the paintings, then made a collage of all the pics while using someone else's pose as a base'. There's a reason why there was even a LAWSUIT against using AI. It, for a lack of a better word, steals from artist works and implements them without permission. Then that's were things get into the grey area of 'oh but it's just learning form others like a human would :)' , but that still doesn't excuse the use of other people's work. Even actual artists will get slandered for stealing other's work even if it's just copied and not traced.
Let's not forget that AI may, as you said, 'have that quality to it' but much like most AI defenders will argue "it'll get better over time". There's the issue, it'll get even worse as time goes on. The line will get blurred more and more and it'll become all the more difficult to discern which online digital artists are "real" and which aren't. It's one thing to have AI used for tech, such as audio compression, then it is to use it as a replacement for folks who can do the work. If you wanna use 'the seed' argument, then you have to ask, where does the line get drawn? How FAR can you allow that logic go? Let's say AI get's so good that now it becomes fully indistinguishable between real and fake. All of it gets implemented with simple 6 word commands, then gets sold as a commercial product. We'd go from 'it's just a seed' to 'it's a tool for assisting" to "haha art machine go brr"
Hell, most of us "use AI" if we have Discord since it has it's built in audio noise filter, but that alone isn't going to replace audio engineers. Which brings us back to the folks who lost their jobs from it. Your argument, for better or worse, may have not been intended to come off as insulting, but it kinda is. Just saying that "oh those folks will just move on to something else :)" isn't the greatest look. It's THE reason why we're upset with it. Even you said that it's already being used in corporate works. It's almost the equivalent of replacing fast food workers with robots. Which, btw, is already happening (Dallas Fort Worth Automated McDonalds). While yes it isn't fully automated and still needs SOME human intervention, that doesn't stop the fact that it still took out a lotta potential work for people.
Going onto your John Lennon argument, this bring in the Voice actors as well. Voice actor character voices have already been replicated and used without permission and it can get SCARE similar to how close they can get. We've already seen it with Alexa or many youtube videos using someone else's voice. Try imagining the worse case scenario, where someone can use these things to create something more malicious or ill-intended with this stuff. The line is so blurred we won't know who or what to believe.
Again, our issue is NOT the fact that it can be a "helpful tool", it's the fact of how it's being used and how EASY it is to use it and detrimental it can be, regardless of the 'Forster argument' made of humans being naturally creative and wanting to do things on our own. Stuff like this NEEDS pushback, cause if we just let people run rampant with these sorts of things, it would only get worse. Leaving something to just the 'Honor System' isn't gonna cut it.
I could ramble on and on more about this, but I've already done too much already. I REALLY do hope you chance some of your views towards this, Kyle. I like your videos and always have, but you're making it....REALLY hard to support someone who wants to enable the use of AI
@@joelaut2605 My brother in christ, that's how AI works. It scrapes pre-existing artwork from millions of artists, who never agreed to be scrapped from, that are registered usually to the LAION-5B database, and blending them together in acrylic paint smeared canvas. That's not 'seeking inspiration' it's art thief. Even in the art-world, artists HEAVILY don't appreciate their work being stolen using the same pose, same style, etc. Actual artists, learn from the PROCESS of the artwork being done and makes it a hand crafted work, not just taking the 'end product', coping exactly that and calling it a day. Artist 'style' is developed overtime by experience of doing the actual drawing, not just by copying others.
ANY professional artist will always tell you that using references via original fundamentals (i.e. anatomy, tone, hue, structure) is what helps you develop your own 'style'. Not by copying the work of others. Even IF/when artists say to look to others for inspiration, it's even THEN recommended to follow HOW they got there, not it's end result. Meaning to learn how THEY do their fundamentals and how they have an understanding of anatomy, structure, etc.
Finally, the invention of the radio was only a tool to PROJECT more of the medium out to the masses, not GIVE the masses an easy way of re-creating music with it.
what is bro yappin about
You could say the exact same thing when it comes to photoshop and past technologies. Of course you might say that its a lot easier to fake stuff than Photoshop, but I can argue people have said the exact same thing when photoshop existed and previous technologies did. Its just a matter of history repeating itself.
Even when AI hadn't existed, there were always ways to use technology in a decietful way. Corporations had always treated their workers badly by paying them below the minimum wage. Deception and stealing was always there since the beginning. And when tools like Photoshop exist, people feared about how much easier it is to manipulate images.
The same exact thing is with AI. You cannot always expect good things to be done with it. Just like any other invention. Unfortunately, there are always going to be people who abuse it to create bad things and they will always exist in the world.
I honestly agree with your concerns and understand them, but what NationSquid was saying was that history repeats itself, and AI is no exception. The only difference is that corporations are meatriding the trend for short term profit. Bad faith actors have always existed since the beginning of time, but thankfully there are few of them in numbers. And once you weed out those people, you'll see more people using AI as a tool rather than for malicious purposes. You will see less of these "AI Artists" and more people who use AI responsibly
Clown
You do have to 'feed' AI with datacenters, electricity, human maintenance labor, not to mention everything used to train it. We don't see that from our side of the computer screen
Even as someone who finds AI interesting and fun, I can't but see that there IS what to worry about. With the given examples of similiar hysterias in the past, the difference is those were revolutions in certain industries - photography, drawing, communication. AI, on the other hand, can replace so much industries at once, and as the world becomes more focused on digitality, it's influence is larger than anything
I know what you were getting at, but your notions of what life was like pre agricultural revolution is outdated. There's an awful lot of art from that period, for instance ;-)
Stop worrying about ai? That sounds like a thing ai would say
The grooves of the record isn't JUST what the record player is using to reproduce the sound, the sound is in the groove, usually on the top part of the groove, that's why when you play a 78 RPM record with a microgroove needle, you get what is known as "surface noise" because the needle is in the surface portion of the groove and not skating above the groove!!
“Nothing can replace you”
Thanks, I needed that
I am terrified that one day I will be replaced by nothing.
Too bad the corps that pay bills don't see it that way. Not everyone can make a living begging others to subscribe to their patreon.
Two years ago, no one saw AI getting this good, this fast. AI can and will replace voice actors, writers, graphic artists, cgi, programmers.
It wont replace everyone in some of those fields, not right away, but the people who stay on will be hired to just clean up the rough edges of what it creates.
Hasbro literally just fired the bulk of their art staff for this reason.
I'm not usually a commenter, and I enjoy your videos, but as an artist, this video is a bit insulting.
Saying "I shouldn't be worried about AI" is ridiculous. AI art is inherently theft, which you left out entirely. It takes bits of artists' hard laboured work learned over years of trial and error and cobbles it together in a shoddy imitation. It makes it feel like the hard work I put in is cheapened by a tacky software that will no doubt get more specific in time, if artists "arent concerned" enough to get actual regulations and copyright protections for this. Digital artists online already are basically abandoned by copyright enforcement, and this just makes the problem more complicated.
I'm a self-taught artist, it took a very long time to reach the skill level I'm at now, and saying so dissmissively that it's the same as any other job being taken, like the telephone operator analogy, is absurd. Cleaning up audio with AI is mostly subtraction, whereas AI art is actively stealing from artists by learning from and utilising OUR work, same with writers, and musicians.
Yes, I agree that the arts are primarly a creative outlet and will always exist, however the main concern from artists is that our specific styles and methods of drawing or writing can be replicated at the push of a button, and we have no say or input. As much as I enjoy your regular content, and I mean this in a constructive tone, this one was majorly off the mark.
The problem with so-called """ai""" (it's not intelligent, a more accurate term would be machine generation) isn't that artists are worried about being replaced by it, at least not long-term. The problem is that nearly ALL machine generation is trained on data--text, images, voice, and video--that is scraped without consent of the creator. If we could guarantee that all of the training data was obtained with the full informed permission of the people who made the original material, I for one wouldn't have an issue with it beyond personal taste, cuz yeah it honestly looks bad even when it's "good". But we can't guarantee that, we'll never be able to guarantee that unless an artist creates a machine generation tool specifically trained on their own work and no one else's, and there's a worrying non-zero amount of machine generators who take great pride in the fact that they're churning out sludge made from grinding up several _actual_ artists' work and plopping out some bland nonemotional paste.
This. Exactly. For a while now I thought I was the only one who was not scared of "AI" because, lets face it, it's not actually AI at all. It's only called AI because it's an easy umbrella term that gets investors excited. Our current AI technology is all just math. A LOT of math. And it's only just this decade that the technology is garnering massive funding. AI research has been ongoing since at least the 70s, with quite promising results. But it's not intelligent. It's just a massive ball of data thrown into an algorithm. But still, the results are interesting and have versatile applications. We just don't really know what all those applications are yet.
But how exactly is that different from a human taking inspiration from another human artist's work?? If the artwork that is produced is transformative enough it's not considered plagiarism.
I definitely think there are some concerns for artists in regards to the use of "AI" but I am not entirely sure training algorithms on existing artwork is it though, since people essentially have done that with all art since humanity started creating artwork.
Nothing is original, everything is a remix and all that jazz.
Whatever craft you're good with, what did YOU train on without the consent of the creator?
@@Eichro Imagine thinking a human studying from other artists in order to gain the understanding necessary to even _begin_ to draw and then perfecting their skill over the course of years, decades even, of their life and throwing stolen images into what is essentially an algorithmic blender to see what sludge gets extruded out is in any way comparable. A machine learning program can't understand what it's being fed, because it's not an entity capable of actual thought. Even calling the concept "machine learning" and the stuff put into these things "training data" are misnomers imo.
But I get the feeling that you would never understand how it feels to know your life's work could potentially be chucked into the Eternal Content Blender without warning, not because you are physically incapable of doing so but because you can't be bothered to give a shit.
@@Khenfu_Cake The way I see it, key difference is being able to understand what you're using to study, and more crucially, when and how it's appropriate to share things you made based on said study material. A machine generation program is incapable of truly understanding what's fed into it, whereas a human artist can genuinely learn from what they see both in life and work that inspires them. It's the difference between tracing the iconic Star Wars movie poster and claiming it as entirely your own work, tracing the poster for fun and possibly for practice until you can draw on your own (and not posting the tracing online or claiming it as your own work), tracing the posing of the characters on said poster and drawing different characters in their place while stating that's what you did, and learning how anatomy and posing works and drawing a similar-looking thing as either an intentional allusion to the poster or subconsciously recognizing how well that composition works for what you intend to draw. Or for writing, using the Star Wars example again, it's the difference between kid me copying my Star Wars books-on-tape word for word in Wordpad (if kid me had had access to the internet at that time and could post said copied work online anyway) and teen/adult me writing fanfic and original works containing scenarios I've brainstormed either by myself or with friends. Learn how to type, then learn how to write creatively. Thankfully people who have content generated for them are often all too happy to proclaim it as such, so the direct copying scenarios aren't _as_ apt a comparison as I'd like, but hopefully I got the point I was trying to make across without going down too many weird rabbit trails... ^^;
There's also the other big ethical concerns, one of which was addressed in this very video: puppeting of the dead. I don't believe in souls as a literal concept, though for pure vibes I can't think of a more fitting word for the energy people put into creative work, but you can't deny that it's skeevy as hell to use a dead person's exact likeness and voice to sell product long after they've died. Freddie Mercury might have said "you can do whatever you want with my music, just don't make it boring" (or something along those lines, I'm only vaguely remembering a comment someone made on a Waluigi-themed cover of Bohemian Rhapsody, and in any case I'd argue churning it through machine generation makes it boring), but I know for a fact Robin Williams didn't want his likeness to be used for anything after his death, so if Disney were to use "his" voice to make new media featuring Genie that would be an insult to his memory. Not to mention the potential to use machine generated content to sow misinformation, whether intentionally or not; how many times have you heard of ChatGPT pumping out blatant falsehoods? If it can't get something as simple as "how many times does the letter 'p' appear in the word 'Tennessee'" correct, imagine how catastrophic someone putting their full trust in such a program with something serious could be. And there are a worrying number of people who are starting to use programs like ChatGPT as something akin to a search engine.
Sorry for the long-ass reply, when my mind gets on a topic like this It Goes Places hehe.
art has existed for as long as humanity...
"No matter how crude, or unrefined the work may be, there should always be some sort of spark present to those engaging with it."
-Yusuke, Persona 5 Strikers.
I met Paul McCartney in 1993 before I was born. Evidently he was at a restaurant with my mother and noticed she was pregnant and wanted to touch her belly. This was the only time someone had asked her and we have a signed picture hanging at their house.
Kind of a weird thing to say...
@@mortenera2294 It's a true story bro. It's only weird if you make it weird and evidently you managed to lol.
5:57 Human: Create a thumbnail which convinces me not to be afraid of you.
AI: [Draws ominous Terminator fanart]
Human: Riiight... [backs away slowly]
I have issues with this technology, mainly that it's leaching off the backs of people's copyrighted works without their permission. I'm glad people are seeing through it, and realize just how much of a crutch it actually is.
You're right, people will always find ways to be self-reliant despite automation. It's in our nature to challenge ourselves, and do things that reflect our efforts and skills: that's what creates value, imo. Whether through art, climbing a mountain, performing on stage, running a marathon, etc, there's this sense of appreciation knowing they'd accomplished something through their own merits.
I appreciate your take.
Leaching off of copyrighted works? Man, humans do that all the time, do you think any musician these days would know how to compose if they hadn't heard previously copyrighted music and then simply turned it over into an original composition?
My worry is that it would do stupid things if it actually takes over jobs
If the problem were mostly Luddite sort of fears about progress and adaptation, sure. But current AI models are full of stolen artistic and literary works, which some are actually being sued for right now. The telephone wasn't made on stolen voices like AI is made on stolen art. And, AI seems to have a special appeal to malicious actors and grifters, who use and create AI apps to do things such as removing the garments of people (sometimes specifically women) to create deepfake nonconsensual explicit images of them. I think at a certain point the case stops becoming only "these new technologies are bad for our industry," but also, how is it being made, and how is it being applied? "Stop worrying about AI," but when do you get to stop worrying? When it's someone else's graphic design job, and not yours? When it's someone else's unclothed body being interpolated and distributed to harm their reputation and employment prospects, and not yours? When it's someone else's body of work stolen to be replicated, and not yours? You assuage the categorization-based fears people have of what is and is not art, but those are the AI fears afforded to those who are not at risk of even more severe consequences from it. The ability to debate and define art, rather than to wonder if one gets to go to work next month or if someone is going to fabricate revenge images of them is a comfortable and intellectually-stimulating sort of position to be able to sit in, isn't it?
Love your videos. And, yes, some machine learning tools are that, with malicious abilities afforded to them less often (audio noise reduction tools and spell checkers sure are pretty helpful to a lot of people). But right now, the problem is so much larger than that, and the tools people are afraid of goes beyond "is it authentic art" and into "how was it trained and why is it so appealing to grifters and harassers right now?"
@@joelaut2605 Humans are not products. ChatGPT and such are. When a human reads a book, it's called "learning" and for extremely obvious reasons, unless they plagiarize it in the future, that's not a copyright problem. LLMs don't "learn" in a cognitive sense. They're part of a product. You feed a book into it and it makes something with that later, that's not learning, that's using someone's commercial literary product to directly develop the capabilities of another product. Which is a copyright issue. These LLMs are able to spit back accurate information about books that were never properly licensed to the LLM creators. It's not opportunistic lawyers or fear of new technology there, it's OpenAI not doing their legal due diligence in licensing the appropriate materials for their technology. Just because you pretend your product acts like a human doesn't mean is not a product that should require the proper paperwork and agreements for licensing of intellectual work going into its creation, and even some compensation for the people whose words help the LLM figure out what a blasted sentence is supposed to read like. They weren't compensated in advance, so they should be compensated in the courts.
People are overestimating AI. I tried convincing ChatGPT that 2+2=5 as a joke, and I told it to round up 2.49 and 4.98. It rounded 2.49 to 3, and 4.98 to 6 somehow. ChatGPT claims to be exactly like a human, but it can’t even round numbers correctly. After using AI for a while, the songwriting and the stories get repetitive, the art is easily noticeable as AI, you know.
Yeah, which means in the end it won't replace humans ever. It might for a bit, but eventually the industries using it are gonna take a nosedive and go screaming for help again.
It seems like you're referring to high art. In illustration/design, it's getting really difficult to find work. I'm a freelance illustrator and I definitely have noticed my avenues for finding work are getting more and more narrowed. I think the answer to the question of if it will replace people has to do with what people value. People usually value cheap things that are produced quickly. For people who are already famous, I think your message is true. But if you're a nobody, what's it matter if the choice is between a random artist and a machine? (Btw I love your channel I don't mean to be critical, it's just a personally difficult topic)
Stop telling me what to do.
Dang that was kinda out of pocket
Have a good day
@@polusdroop Stop telling him to stop telling you to stop telling me what to do.
I think all y'all need to stop telling each other to stop telling each other to stop telling each other to stop telling each other what to do.
@@polusdroop Stop telling him to stop telling you to Stop telling me to stop telling you what to do
I did have some worries about AI. But I think we're all smart enough to not let AI get to the point where it becomes the next Skynet.
But what about Gen Alpha? The first humanity generation that GROWS UP with AI? As a Gen Z person I hope future generations won't become more lazy because of AI.
@@infernal-toad as an early 2010's gen alpha person, i kinda have the same question about the later mid-late 2010 alphas and early-mid 2020 alphas. later gen alpha could be our saving grace, or it could become our downfall. all we have to do is wait for now.
I think that’s naive.
@@infernal-toadWe’ll be fine if we just show Wall•E in schools
we might have already gotten to that point, given military testing atleast
this video was probably one of your weakest ones for me, i think boiling the AI art debate down to "only human made art has value because humans made it so don't worry about it" is an extremely surface-level read of the issue.
other people have already commented, but i'll reiterate: the main issue is HOW the AI is learning to do what it does. you already have publishing companies suing AI companies over copyright theft, and we hope this trickles down to small independent creators but what if it doesn't? some art AI you can even tell them what artist specifically you want to rip-off and now i have a bootleg drawing of theirs for free instead of paying for a commission, and now that artist is out of income.
comparing the probably hundreds of illustrators who used to do marketing art prior to photography and saying "well they just got jobs as comic artists!" misses the point and undermines the weight of the repercussions. it's probably not even fully accurate, as life-like illustrations for products aren't the same skill set as cartooning let alone comic making. there's a good video by Linus Boman here on youtube that partially talks about this ("Why Clip Art Was Everywhere... Until It Wasn't")
and your idea of "who cares" about your john lennon song? look at the tupac hologram thing. or carrie fisher in star wars. people DO care even if it's "not them."
another issue with AI is the amount of cooling is required: "In a paper due to be published later this year, Ren's team estimates ChatGPT gulps up 500 milliliters of water (close to what's in a 16-ounce water bottle) every time you ask it a series of between 5 to 50 prompts or questions" (MATT O’BRIEN and HANNAH FINGERHUT from associated press). this is also a SERIOUS issue that shouldn't be minimized.
you saying "give up on fighting AI and learn to embrace it" has me rethinking whether i want to continue supporting you or not. saying you're ok with intellectual copyright theft and the environmental destruction AI causes really gives me pause.
This video is beyond tone deaf and insufferably missing the mark on how genuinely serious the gravity of the reality of the situation really is. Firstly before I say anything, obviously not all uses of AI in art is ethically debious or horrible. But with the recent progress going as far and dangerous as it has; we have literally slept walk into a revelation that has vastly more serious consequences than the nuclear bomb. We have detonated into an yet another revolutionary age where we must suffer the dire consequences. AI advancement is yet another step at mankinds arrogant progress into our own self destruction that has been initiated since we tamed fire.
Art is vastly more bigger than you really expect from little designs for your grandmothers wall, concept art for a character in a game art is vastly more used outside of its use on canvases and exhibitions. It is mainly used on commercial products. But with AI art is that it completely gets rid of the need for that side of art entirely if shareholders decide to oblige and manipulate to it. The thing is, there is no and will never be an alternate new "thing" for people whos jobs are replaced by AI like it did for telecommunication jobs or other such jobs. It will be vastly harder to adapt those jobs amongst AI once its fully integrated by every sizeable organisation and company on the planet.
Sure AI has a "look" right now but that will change and it will change quickly and the quicker it does the more that its influnce will take hold within. Companies are eventually going to implement ai and replace artists wholescale if the progress of ai continues as is without any regulation.
AI art models like midjourney are trained on images gathered by openAI that it had used without consent nor permission on a vast scale which is why potientially in a legal sense, nothing the model actually outputs is transformative in anyway. But the fact openAI used images as such without any consequences so far is very alarming.
With AI as a whole, we are walking to an age of generated disinformation not seen since the birth of the internet. Any Information and also including goods and products like art literally cannot trusted in any shape or form now as AI models are going to be Implemented through out, taking data from your art, messages, pictures, stories, videos and posts and using that information to train and generate off from. Its only going to get better, bigger and prevasive.
We are in an age of hell.
AI art will most likely be a worse way of getting art, For example, its pretty hard to adjust without more ai, and even still it might not be what you want, that's why companies and indie devs wont do use AI
it does pretty well at getting what you want currently and is getting better
the only problem with it is that it still has that AI look, that’s why no one’s using it. anyone can tell if it’s AI generated art or not AI art. couple of years from now on you probably will have zero idea which is which
@@ashdang23 In the end AI will never achieve perfection, there is no such thing as the perfect AI. However there is a "good enough" point.
@@ashdang23 Yeah maybe if they can ever train AI to actually think for itself and that would require them to tear it all down and do it again with a different method. AI goes off of collected data that it "learns" off of, which isn't actual learning. There is a reason that even when you get the AI to create a drawing of a person with the proportions right, it still looks the same as the rest of the AI art of people with that realistic, cartoony anime-ish painting feel. Because it all goes off of the same data and even if the program is different, many of them share the same users and thus the same data its "trained" off of is largely the same.
I disagree, read below
I can see art being the material form of the human dream of chasing perfection. And that's why almost everything can be art, even things that don't fall into the usual categories of paintings or music. One could maybe argue that a great engineering craft is also art, even though it wasn't meant for expression but functionality. Even so, maybe the writing of the AI code could be considered art in case it was so good, but the products of the programm can't be.
That wouldn't be a problem in a perfect world. But in this world we all struggle to find jobs that we like, so that we can spend so many hours of our lives actually caring about the work we do and have fun with it. So AI only hinders us from doing as such, with it being so easy and cheap to mass produce anything.
So no. I disagree strongly.
People never wanted to work hard on the fields so they would have food in the winter. But they like tending to plants. Automated farming machinery doesn't bother us then. If I had a farm, then I kept my job and made it easier on myself. But if I could draw or play an instrument incredibly well, trained years for it, and then wanted to work as an artist, HOW WOULD AI HELP ME?
AI can be great when used musically, though it can't create serious music so if there is demand for it (which there is) then AI won't be doing anything to hamper the artists who create it.
@@PiotrBarcz it can't yet. But as we've seen with "drawings", people start to use it increasingly as its technology gets better. Although there may be artifacts or boring loops and such in the pieces, ultimately none cares if they aim to use it for mass production. Little artistic details don't matter to a producer. Ai music pieces may sell less, but if the cost is close to 0, then the producer succeeds.
@@riakaraofficial AI music won't sell at all because you can't copyright it, it's all public domain xD
Im not worried about losing my job, mostly because I don't think the company has a fortune to replace everyone in the staff with ai that costs 4 bigillion dollars every hour...
Yes, nothing can replace my stupidity.
"Nothing can replace you."
Yeah, I know it can, but you didn't have to put it so bluntly.
Human-made art will always be better than ai art because we put our heart and soul into our art
True
This is stupid. "Stop worrying about AI?" Already, popular streaming services like HBO, Disney, etc, have started using it as a hallmark to replace already underpaid and overworked artists. Disappointed.
just like he explained. Dipping period - People losing and not understanding. We will adapt and change as to how we use AI
Hundreds of thousands of people have already lost their jobs in the last 12 months because companies prioritize profit over human decency. That will continue and spread across all sectors the more advanced AI becomes. If you aren’t worried about AI, you should start being worried about AI. To not be worried is to be naive.
I ate pasta on the carpet
15:27 HOLY SHIT YOU USED SOMETHINGS GONE BY THE JAM I LOVE THAT SONG I DIDNT THINK MANY PEOPLE KNEW IT HOLY FUCK
Also very beautiful rendition of "With a Little Help From My Friends" at the end.
Why did nobody tell me that the Beatles released a new song????
Really enjoyed this video. Excellent research. Happy Christmas. 💙🍿🎄
the title of this video really had me worried that you had gone down the route of supporting AI to create art and replace artists, but thankfully that isn't the case. Wholeheartedly agree with your take. AI is fine if used as a tool (i.e. cleaning up audio), but it will NEVER replace artists, and it CANNOT create art by the definition of what art is.
One last note: I'm a bit surprised that the issue of copyright with art and AI generated works wasn't brought up. Given how the current data sets of image and text generation are trained off of copyrighted materials without permission from the copyright holders, it is nigh impossible to copyright works generated by AI. This gives even more credence to artists and reinforces their place in society.
Ai should replace crusty artists
@@RealAICClYou should replace your sad life with an actual life, instead of calling artists crusty simply for doing their passion
@lovelysakurapetalsyt you can’t replace people’s passions with AI but jobs yes
Exactly, anyone who even thinks art is replaceable, isn't thinking of art at all. They are thinking of Aesthetic products. 99% of these "Artists" aren't doing art at all, just product creation.@@ashdang23
Yeah, and AI doesn't have any intellectual rights (the algorithm itself is owned by whoever created the code) so anything created by it is just public domain and can't be used for profit really so what's the point of trying to make money with something you can't sell?
Merry Christmas, NationSquid.
Great video, thanks for the content over the years
26:40 I didn't even do anything! Why am I being bullied? 😢
Of course ai can't replace art, but can replace creative works
and the difference between "art" and "creative works" is???
The audio in this video is amazing! It's incredible how good it sounds, how it sounds extremely close-mic'ed, extremely tight, and yet no visible mic in the shot. That's amazing! Unfortunately, it sounds too tight and compressed, I couldn't take it anymore after a few minutes. Had to turn it off. It needs to breath a bit more.
Wow, such a sublime work you've done here. So great, and it made me think about a lot of things. Thank you for making this video
he's just like me fr (talks about the Beatles at literally every opportunity)
LOL
That's a bug, not a feature.
So thats how his audio is so crisp... thats really smart!
Nice MCR Black Parade shirt. I have the exact same one :)
I really doubt that "Now and Then" is proper to describe as an art piece, vocals of dead person still feels aesthetically right with technique, but where's the story and who can prove Lennon's and Georgie's senses and authenticity? It's not the worst though at least they can prove it was Lennon's and Georgie's work and they used AI to merge into the final product, at least their work did exist, but how about the AI creations come from nowhere, those "This XYZ does not exists" creations? Just like replacing Lennon's vocal on your voice to make your song feels like Beatles but didn't exists?
Well todays OpenAI release really changed things forever. Gonna hurt a lotbof jobs
A couple points.
First, this whole thing about art needing to be human... I think you're forgetting something important. Communication, by definition requires at least two parties: one to send a message, and one to receive it. And art is a way of communicating, making a connection.
But perception is a solitary exercise. We perceive that we have made a connection, but we can be wrong. Do we truly know another person, or do we know the model of them that we construct in our heads? It's the model; the model is what we have. Our model can be wrong in a number of ways. Maybe we made eye contact with a person and shared a moment, but then it turns out they were actually looking at someone behind us. A person may be lying to us for any number of reason. They may be keeping secrets. Or they may tell us something, and we may misunderstand, whether because of mishearing, upbringing, culture, any number of things. We may think we understand one another, when the truth is we don't.
Now, this is not such a great tragedy. It's still possible to form bonds with people and feel love for them. We take care to make our models of them as accurate as we can, we take in our interactions as fully as we can, we check things against our own understanding of the world; and then, at a certain point, we trust, because life would be filled with despair if we had no ability to trust.
But the fact of perception being a solitary exercise has consequences regarding art created by AI. We may have, arguably, eliminated the person who sends the message, but we still have a person who can receive it. A person viewing AI-generated art can perceive a message, even perceive a messenger. And yes, this perceived messenger could simply be the echo of the artists that AI is imitating, in which case we could say there are real messengers. But in the end, all we need is the perception of a message, possibly a messenger, and the experience that a recipient has is just as valid to them as if the art were created entirely by a human being.
You actually illustrate this with your example of the "Now and Then" clock. Olivia had put up this clock, and then she got a call from Paul, and the words "now and then" became a shocking connection for her. She perceived it as a message from George. Yet George is dead and gone; this was just a coincidence, ultimately falling in line with the laws of probability. George did not communicate anything to her, and yet she perceived that he did, and this experience was just as valid for her as if George had actually been there.
When you speak about the facts of how a piece of art was created, and why, you're getting into the territory of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. I will say that yes, the story, the narrative, is important, and that the narratives of AI are not the same as those of people. But the narrative is not entirely necessary for appreciation of a work of art. It can have meaning, it can stir emotions, it can make you feel a kind of connection, even if it wasn't created by a human.
This also ties into the intentional fallacy - the idea that the right way to understand a piece of art is according to the intention of the artist who created it. It may not be specifically the intentional fallacy in this case, but it's similar. You can appreciate a piece of art based on the story behind it - what the artist was feeling, what they were going through, etc. But to judge the art accordng to this story would be wrong. Because in the end, the story of the creation of the art is not what we have in front of us; what we have in front of us is the art itself. The art must ultimately stand or fall on its own merits, and the story can only do so much to rescue it.
Peter Hammill put it like this:
And the whole thing falls apart
When the movement's more important than the art;
When we're more concerned with what's been thought than said,
This is the moment when the culture's dead.
Second, I think you underestimate ancient humanity's connection with art. Your examples of cave painting already rebut your claim. There are also examples of sculpture, like the Venus of Willendorf. Even in ancient weapons - and I don't have the source on this, so correct me if I'm wrong - we see that some weapons have extra features that serve no practical purpose; they are simply aesthetically pleasing. So we know that people valued aesthetics. And let's not neglect music; we have found instruments, primarily flutes, that are tens of thousands of years old. Ancient humanity did not live without art, as you suggest.
Third, "Now and Then" used AI to isolate a vocal. It did not resynthesize anything. People should not be in any way concerned about AI on "Now and Then". The argument of "Is it a fake?" is a total non-starter. There is no debate.
I agree with you on most of this. Like the matter of telephone operators. Or for that matter, elevator operators. How many people are out of work today because the only job they could have done was to be a telephone or elevator operator? I'd be surprised if there were even a handful of people for whom this was true. The jobs go away, the technology changes, the work still gets down, and new jobs involving new kinds of work appear. We adapt, and we have no need to get rid of the technology and bring back those old jobs. You said it.
You understand how humanity will adapt to AI. You understand it better than most people out there. You have it exactly right: we should use AI in ways that enrich our lives, not diminish them. It's a choice that we can make. With regards to AI, we can rage against it and choose despair, or we can embrace it, play with it, see what it can do, learn to use it, and choose joy.
I agree with what you said in this video but I also think you missed two very key points:
AI generated artwork still had to learn from somewhere and that somewhere is overwhelmingly stolen artwork that is never giving credit to the original artist who likely did not agree to letting their art be used.
And legitimate artists have been wrongfully accused of using AI.
Unlike past revolutionary ideas this one comes with a huge bag of nuanced issues that are broader than the scope of replacement.
Humans learn from other humans work, how is it any different? And the created work by AI cannot be copyrighted and sold because it wasn't created by those trying to sell it.
@@PiotrBarcz Ah yes I forgot the entire world works on the honor code where no one ever uses ripped assets from another artist/creator and doesn't give them any credit, and it's *certainly* not even easier to do so now with AI creation. Oh! And it's not at all like anyone is also putting *other* creators out of work like voice actors and even writers by only using AI so they don't have to pay anyone.
@@Aiva Those are people who settle for worse, if a company wants quality, it will hire professionals to do it, and like the channel owner said, it's just a temporary dip, AI will get old very quick and the real people will slowly come back into the work environment.
@@PiotrBarcz The SAG-AFTRA agreement just proved your entire comment incorrect. Actors, VAs and other industry workers went on strike for the better part of half a year to get better pay and benefits only to have SAG yank the rug out from under them to partner with Replica Studios and offer AI voices of *real people* just trying to make a living so they don't have to pay them. Tons of production companies have already switched to using AI for a ton of things because they don't have to pay a computer. Even in the UK, these AI companies are trying to get actual *laws* changed in regards to copyright to benefit them.
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. I would love it if it were just a flash in the pan that's going to die out but at the end of the day the bottom line is money talks and the less they have to spend, the more likely they're going to go that direction.
AI isn't going to threaten any future Warhols or the like. But today's jobbing commissioned artists, who turn out relatively simple, quick pieces to order to make a buck? Their time is up. Here's the thing; as far as business is concerned, art IS aesthetics. Humans will pay a premium for convenience and we are hardwired to take the path of least resistance, and right now that's typing prompts into a text box to generate a result, rather than discussing requirements and arranging transaction with another human. People are not worried that we'll not see another Andy Warhol or similar emerge, really what sort of hipster is worried about that? Rather, they're worried that what they do for a living is being more conveniently, more quickly, and above all more cheaply produced by machine learning. This is fact, and your video completely misses it.
People always had time for art before agriculture: have you seen Lascaux? The went into very difficult places in caves to do it. And after agriculture people didn't had time because of it, the impact of agriculture had to do with staying in one place not being nomadic, but much more important: Eugene Weber defines the importance of agriculture is have surplus of goods that you can trade with others, creating the need to do math and keep records leading to inventing writing. It has not to do with free time it has to do with necessity. Agriculture didn't allowed art, it was always there, it only made it more durable. You misunderstood the beginning of civilization: Kenneth Clark says Vikings had a culture, but not a civilization: they had art, poetry, literature, music, navigation, but they were in constant state of flux, the next invasion, the next battle, the next place to get a better life. He defines civilization as the moment when it worth to make things to endure, that made art survive so we could appreciate it.
Sorry bro. Can’t romanticize AI like that.
Thank you for explaning the Campell's soup story since It didn't meant anything for me. Now that I understand the context it opened a new way of appreciate it.
Damn Kyle really needs to be honest
I read the E. M. Foster short story, "The Machine Stops". After reading it, I thought, this couldn't have been written in 1909?
19:14 Bold of you to assume defining art is an easy to settle argument amoung every artist in existence xD
I do not agree. This is not the fire, the wheel, the computer, the electricity, this is an AI. This is one of the two things that are going to change people as a kind, as a race. The second one is the genome (dna, rna - writers, decoders, changers, etc.) So, AI is something huge. If I have a company, making games. In 10 years, do you think I'll need - PMs, POs, scrum and agile masters, art directors, front and back end devs, game designers, game producers, mathematicians, sound designers, hrs, project managers, delivery managers, support, sys admins, etc.. do you really think that? I don't. I can have my company, AI for everything and I will be capable of making a better games, based on really huge r&d, really fast. And cheaper. You can tell me, but for a restaurant workers will be different. Well, are you sure? I wouldn't bet on that. Or doctors, lawyers, the police, flight attendees... everyone and everything. Tbh, the technology is already here, it just need some more time to be put together and under regulations. But, but... in the future... I can’t see a job, where a man will be the worker... even for server, pc, AI - maintenance... I can see a future with base income, and a lot lot lot of new products.
In conclusion, I have one more question to you, an easy one - Can you be 100% sure, if I am a human?😊
I loved your video. I work with AI, and it has also taken away my job, but that job that took away from me deep down I knew was extremely expendable once the technology advanced enough (as is the case with the position of telemarketer for example) And while it may replace us on many levels, it will never be able to replace human expression. The message, the context, the subtext in an art work. AI can recreate and copy, but AI imagine. And yes, I know there are horrible things that can be done with AI, they can also be done with photo editing, audio editing and video montages, it's something that has been going on for decades. But people are terrified and forget that artificial intelligence has been with us for almost 20 years. We can pretend that it is the monster that is going to take away our jobs, but it is never going to replace the artist, the tangible and besides that, the human factor. The same thing was thought to happen with digital photography arrive, and today rolls of film are very expensive and the demand continues to grow and grow (as well the price to), because again, we are always going to return to the tangible, to the human. We can see videos of a singer from one band singing another band's song by AI, but it's something temporary, it's not going to excite us or cause us remotely the same as real music, recorded by real people. The same goes for scripts, you can make a story with Chat GPT... now... that it's good? That really excites you? That generates something for you? Not at all. And my job is to restore historical archives with the help of AI (in my case I use Real ERSGAN, FFMPEG and Video 2x, all from Linux Lite), so in that aspect it is beautiful to recover material from oblivion and preserve it for the next generations, but that is not done by AI, I do it with the help of AI. It's a tool, like the internet, that you can use to hack into a bank account or to create art and spread the word about how you do with your channel
No matter how AI can recreate the Bliss. It will not moved us like it was when we use Windows XP and even when you stand at the hill you can feel it. What we must do is to use it and guide it to be our tools and do better things and not let corporate to use it to threaten us.
I wouldnt shut up about The Beatles either if I too had a striking resemblance to bearded Paul
Yeah just stop worrying about existential risk. Great idea. It will all work itself out naturally with no problems. It's not like we humans have a really bad track record or anything.
I think you hit it right on the head with the idea that AI can handle aesthetics but not be true art. And your story at the end perfectly encapsulates that - when an artist is drawing or painting something, they have creative control and someone reviewing the work can tell what the artist thought was important and have a deeper understanding of what the artist was thinking. In essence, that simple idea creates more of a feeling of connection between artist and viewer.
AI can generate great images, but it has no understanding of those concepts because it's just regurgitating information based on values assigned to its training data.
I'm curious though: what's your take on someone generating something with AI and then using creative tools themselves to improve/change/adapt the work? Does that count as art, or should art be completely human-generated?
What is the reverb removal tool. I desperately red one.
AI (Jack Gold calls it assistant intelligence) which lives inside computers cannot create something from nothing, just like computers can make themselves work out of thin air. What it does brilliantly (quickly) is aggregating existing data and transforming it into new data.
wow this is the one of the best birthday gifts ive ever had
this is so comforting, man
big ups !!
I have a special project, in my heart and in in my mind for decades. It's a song based upon an instrumental my late father recorded on his pedal steel guitar 40 years ago. I can kinda sing, I have the lyrics and the harmonics overlay track in my head, I have the instrumental track... But I lack the musical expertise to make it happen. AI tools are getting me closer to honoring my dad, and making my dream come true... Almost there... I love this video you made. AI is not a dystopian future... It's just a new tool. I'm familiar with the term ' Luddite ' and what it means... That's not me at all. Bring it on!
i walked through blood and bones
Awesome video. Also yeah, Now and Then was an awesome 25th birthday present for me 😊😊😊. November 3rd is my bday.
I think the main problem with the idea of AI entirely replacing artists is the fact that in order to go from a text prompt, to something else, requires more information.
A text prompt has much less information than an image, and a novel has much more information than a text prompt.
Now this may sound obvious, of course, but here's why that means that people cant be replaced. An AI cant be creative, it can only take weighted averages, and calculate a result. This means that all of that extra information isnt unique, its an average. No matter how good this technology gets, that will be true.
So that just means, every output, no matter how original or fantastical the prompt, will output something average, in some sense.
I think 21:50 illustrates my point perfectly.
"They adapted" yeah because their job was taken away from them. You're trying to say don't worry you will keep your job while giving examples of people losing their jobs.
this is such a beautiful video! i love the message, especially the metaphor about the Campbell's soup. it's the message that matters, not the art itself. this video made me feel much more comfortable about AI
AI is nothing but making people who edit lazy. Also when it comes to videogames, I lately hear a lot of stuff said about DLSS which is an AI that upscales framerates or resolutions in video games. Now I do know it works for systems that aren't powerful enough to run at native resolution or 60fps, but why would anyone be interested into upscaling techniques when you like and prefer seeing pixels when Anti-aliasing is disabled and like in older games? for me pixels in videogames are charming and a part of history. So an AI that blurs the pixels out to upscale them is pretty much useless.
I agree that AI is often used in ways that just shows that people are lazy. But your comment about DLSS only applies to people like yourself who like the lower quality nostalgic aspects of pixely low resolution graphics, DLSS is great for those who want the utmost realism in their graphics and it's those people who usually use it.
Here's my cynical thinking of how things will eventually go, by design: AI will replace all jobs, no adapting this time, and the corporations/elites will simply decide how much money each person gets based on a social credit score. That's the whole concept behind Universal Basic Income. So our sustenance will be dependent on what the elites decide to dole out from endless money printing rather than what we the people do for ourselves (i.e., hard work).
ai is stupid
😬 comparing ChatGPT to cavemen planting seeds isn’t a sound analogy. Don’t get me wrong, I get where you’re coming from but when a seed was planted, the person planting the seed still had to wait months for crops to grow (and in that time could still go out and hunt). Sure, it was a new thing and they still had to adapt, but these were two concepts that could easily exist side by side.
As a creative, it’s scary to me to think that one day, I’m not going to have the opportunity to even write a song, let alone perform it, because at the push of a button AI could do it all in my place. It’s the same with artists; our opportunities, in my opinion, are under threat by AI. It’s all very well saying that 'people can learn to adapt' but I, personally, don’t want to become a button pusher to the next Vocaloid that’s only using a sample of the tone of my voice.
I like the fact that comments here show that human will proactive in any situation, capturing the point of this video
Would you consider the beatles progressive rock? At last latter part of their discography
yeah, I’d say it’s pretty scary whenever you make a character of your own from your own ideas in your brain and you can tell a computer to draw it and it looks identical but it’s cool I think its gonna be a hit or miss…
thought you were dream for a sec
(1/2)
You say that I'm not replaceable... Now, here's what I have to say.
19:49 - "A lot of people who worry about A.I. taking over aren't even talking about art at all."
I don't know what people you are talking about, and this is making the validity of that statement highly questionable...
I can't tell if you are trying to ease the worries of artists or...just telling them that they don't understand art...? _Are we even talking about _*_artists,_*_ here?_
... I think that people generally gravitate toward things that have that human meaning you are talking about. Some of them are not artists, but even some artists don't necessarily know what makes art. That's why I believe that it's something you can only really FEEL and try to put into words or visual representations-that is art as an ARTIFACT, not as a PRODUCT. Automation, however, is not artistic at all... (I'll get to that.)
I'm not too sure what you are trying to say (in regards to A.I.) by bringing up this idea of "story" regarding Campbell's soup can paintings...
21:47 - "Aren't humans just like A.I. as well?"
No.
A flat out: *_No._*
22:11 - John Lennon is dead, yes. What about artists who are still alive? What if their families still depend on the success of their work after their death?
We can say that a recording is representative of John Lennon's voice-even if A.I. reconstructed some parts of it-because what we hear is still mostly the original recording of his voice at the time it was recorded. *_This song would not have existed without his voice, and that's the thing about originality that we need to pay attention to: it's a scale of how much something depends on someone else's work to exist VERSUS how much someone's personality and creative choices went into the creation of something._* That's why copyright exists, to protect the rights of individuals with regard to their IPs.
The reason why A.I. is already so problematic is because now, automation is making things that are different enough to create this entire problem about *_what is made by a machine and what is made by a person._* Since it cannot "forget" the data-the millions of images, text files or what have you-that was used to train it, we can say that everyone on the internet have contributed to making A.I. without consenting to it. _They are neither compensated nor credited._ So what does that mean, moving forward? It certainly isn't fair from where I'm standing.
31:27 - The oh-so famous camera analogy...
What a photographer sees at the moment they press the button on the camera is what they saw at that moment-the subjects, the arrangement of the subjects, the angle, the lighting...and their camera does not rely on taking pictures of artworks to become more sophisticated at generating images that are similar but different enough to be labelled as "fair use" or "original", if you want to go there.
9:49 - I really don't like the framing of this point... Yes, some automation can help, but what is critical is WHAT you automate... No one would complain to have more naturally grown food-you're not losing any human value in that. As you mentioned, people don't really need art to survive... From what I'm seeing, here, you appear to conflate the value of basic needs with the value of transmitting a message/express oneself through art, which is no better than deliberately devaluing the latter because if people thought "well, we don't need art to survive, so we should leave all work that doesn't help with our survival up to machines", that is missing the point.
Very, VERY often, it feels like I have to try to explain what it means to feel humanity to someone else who just doesn't "get" art, as if it's just a superficial thing that doesn't need to be...and there is simply no way I can do that, because if you don't feel art, you just don't, but what I take personally is when I hear people conflating things like this left and right...and not wanting to let other people share their thoughts on the matter without ridiculing/demonizing them and twisting their words to make it sound like they mean one thing when that's not even true.
I'm not telling you to change your mind about this... It just saddens me. It's also...so enraging to see people treat this technology with conventional ideas and making analogies that in reality don't hold up, and when people speak against that and try to explain why that is, well...
If I'm not making sense to anyone reading this, at least I'm trying to explain my point of view.
(2/2)
Sigh...
Usually, the cycle of integrating a new way of doing things/a new technology takes about a decade to sort out. That is nothing for A.I... It evolves so quickly that the legality can't catch up. Honestly, I don't know if at this point, you've been unaware of or ignoring that fact. It's very likely that development is going to accelerate, especially when training an A.I. with another A.I. once the systems reach a certain point. That's not even getting into synthetic data that they will likely eventually be making by themselves to "learn" things faster than we can "teach" them. What I'm concerned about is who will be using these A.I. in the not-so-distant future *_and for what purpose._* The corporations developing A.I. have already proven that they don't respect artists with their unwillingness to properly regulate the systems and be held accountable for their lack of consideration as to how these things can be used. They still won't implement a request to OPT-IN by default to have one's data willfully trained on, so how are you even supposed to know what is sent/scraped online to update the models? How am I supposed to defend my chances of having my voice being heard when anyone can just turn to A.I.? Some argue that "it's not that good yet", and how do they explain people losing clients and being told to fix A.I. output in already existing workplaces and freelancers being taken advantage of by having them sketch something that clients would rather not do on their own before said clients "finish" them with A.I. without asking for the artist's permission to use their commissioned work in this manner beforehand?... And to then ask to be credited for something like a LoRA or to suggest paying royalties for the names of people coming up in prompts, *_for work they did not even do?_* - "Some jobs will be replaced, but not all of them."
Okay... I don't buy that argument. (It's one that I've heard in other places.) I see it as unreceptive.
People mean to tell me that I just need to "adapt"... That's funny, you know? Artists have always been treated as this inferior aberration. Since they are mostly independent, they always have to prove themselves while the rest of society leaves them in the dust to figure out on their own how to manage a very...precarious career. That's not new at all-they've been stigmatized when asking for liveable wages and exploited by a materialistic mindset, now ingrained in our conditioning since childhood by constantly bombarding us since the age of 5 with ads and what is considered to be things that we are told we *_"should"_* want to have or be like-to the point where the message of *_needing_* to own these things is so subliminal that we find ourselves identifying with most of them.
My point here is that companies and people WILL be using ML technologies to get what they want at a cheaper price and in less time, *_even at the expense of creativity._* Give corporations enough time to develop their A.I.s and sooner or later, as the conversation of what is creative shifts over to whatever unpredictable process is involved with using A.I., artists will be marginalized, because it's all about "the new ways of doing things".
It's not just about me, though-people identify themselves with machines, believing they creatively express themselves with it, so I ask:
Where is your limit between humans and machines/"tools"?
If A.I. can replace humans in the market, don't you think people won't try to use it for things _other than art?_ What about programming? What about EVERYTHING you do with a computer? If the hardware allows it once robots are fine-tuned, what about manual labor? Who/what will be our tutors?
Does this not paint a picture of a possible future where most of us are confined in a certain space, not having to do anything while a robot class is doing everything for the corporations and a single world government?... Would the people in power still even care about what citizens feel and think about their ways of running the world? When it comes to things that are meaningful, things that someone took a lot of time and effort to make, where do we even look for these manually/digitally crafted things WITHOUT MUCH AUTOMATION, in this scenario where almost everything around us is done with A.I.? You may think that there is no way most people would let that happen, but what are we if machines are the ones doing the policing for the people leading the world?
Telling me to "stop worrying about A.I." doesn't change anything.
I don't condemn the technology... I want it in the right hands of people who are willing to actually LISTEN to my concerns and the ones of everyone else without misrepresenting them or treating their own beliefs as superior to the ones of others and thus more DESERVING of any attention.
With A.I., there is no room for people who would rather isolate themselves in their own bubble instead of discussing about it with others. We don't need to agree, we just have to allow people with different opinions to be heard without being misrepresented as some kind of luddite or whatever.
Indeed, artists can never be *_essentially_* replaced. You didn't have to make all the comparisons in your video with telegram workers and secretaries or soup can paintings for me to understand that. Once again, your comparisons are missing the point...
You can't replace an artist, but you can take away their means to live off of their creations. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD or that it's ETHICAL.
I ask again: *_what is your limit between machines/"tools" and humans?_*
How could you really tell the difference from just looking at an image?
_Does it even matter to you?_
If your argument is "it's fine because someone controlled the A.I."-you don't control A.I.
It's a black box.
It doesn't really think. It doesn't FEEL things. Even if it did, _HUMANS. ARE. NOT. MACHINES._
Humans can't scrape millions of images online and mathematically remember every single pixels in relation to each other and perform tasks with statistical probabilities regarding values and lines of code.
--------
I don't know if you are knowingly passing this off as just another phase of technological evolution only to deliberately spread misinformation like the corporations pretending to be "the future of humanity", labelling themselves and their products as fancy words such as "ethical", "responsible", "fair", "decentralizing", "democratizing", "progress", "transparent" - That's all just PR. I'm not interested in people trying to *_look good_* while passing responsibility onto others. Why won't corporations show what's inside their datasets? Why won't people let me know that something is made with A.I.? How am I supposed to KNOW what _they_ made? Who says that I can't assume that most of what they did is generated by A.I.? _There are no practical ways to do so!_ Sure, there is a certain plastic feel to works that have been generated, but *_where do you DRAW the line between work that is 20% generated and 90% generated? How much of that was someone correcting an A.I.'s output?-And I know that some people are going to look at this and think: "then what's the problem?" To that, I say... (sigh) ...think what you will._* Some people just don't care as long as what is generated satisfies them, and they will gamble with the systems until they have it, and this creates a satisfaction loop for both the users and the systems that will "learn" from what people want from it. No one can pursue these people in court because the judges don't make the right calls. Policy makers are too slow and also don't really care unless it directly affects their jobs, and they don't care about someone's spiritual journey of self-discovery. They only respond to concrete rules and money.
The thing is, *_no laws or rules have been made specifically with A.I. in mind!_*
*Just because it doesn't break any laws doesn't make it ethical.*
Not everything is a political or business matter in life.
--------
To summarize... I don't think that A.I. is just another new technology. It has potential for good-reference generator, small bits of material to be modified and arranged creatively-but ultimately, when looking at society...I don't think people will use it responsibly unless there is a massive undertaking on the part of everyone on the planet to self-regulate and look after each other. Otherwise, we will likely end up in a society where most people just...no longer care whether something is made by a person or an algorithm.
You may ask yourself "then, where is the problem?"
How long do you think you would like that world? A world in which almost everything is made by machines?
Would it be worth it?
Personally, I never will touch anything that is made mostly by A.I. because it doesn't feel human, and I NEED to connect with someone else...
Yet, there are people who have no interest at all in our species. *_They even see this need of mine as a flaw that must be corrected._*
I won't ignore those people...lest I end up in some kind of holocaust where they try to satisfy me with a Universal Basic Income.
I don't want that world. I just want to do what gives me a reason to care at all about anything: illustrating, telling stories and connecting with other people.
Being myself is one thing, but I also have the need to elevate that to some kind of purpose greater than myself.
Ai can and will replace a lot of workers. But, especially during its infancy, we will need a ton of people to help not only clean up the mistakes that comes with ai generation, but people who can fine tune the ai models themselves.
I understand and agree with your intentions, but it’s dangerous to believe that art never existed or existed in limited amounts before the agricultural rev because there’s not enough evidence to prove that. Patterns generally show that there should have been a whole lot of art as we traditionally know it for as long as tools could be made, but had just disintegrated and disappeared due to the environment.
Listen man, art does well under a culture that prioritizes innovation and that is not what happens under capitalism, which we’re currently in the late stages of. We are not prospering right now lol. Art changes as the world changes, but that doesn’t mean it will get better or increase in amount or anything like that. Warhol’s work is influential because of what he criticized, and was then killed by what he criticized. This is inspiring, but the conditions that lead to his work should not be a good thing or aspirational.